University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2016 The evelopmeD nt of ‘Meaning’ in Literary Theory: A Comparative Critical Study Mahmoud Mohamed Ali Ahmad Elkordy University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Comparative Literature Commons Recommended Citation Elkordy, M. M.(2016). The Development of ‘Meaning’ in Literary Theory: A Comparative Critical Study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/3794 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم وبه نستعين وصلى هللا وسلم وبارك على محمد النبي اﻷمي وعلى آله وصحبه وأحبابه أجمعين يارب ارض عنا آمين الحمد هلل في اﻷولى واﻵخرة وسﻻم على عباده الذين اصطفى هللا خير The Development of ‘Meaning’ in Literary Theory: A Comparative Critical Study by Mahmoud Mohamed Ali Ahmad Elkordy Bachelor of Arabic Language Al-Azhar University, 2010 Master of Arts University of London, 2011 ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Comparative Literature College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2016 Accepted by: Paul Allen Miller, Major Professor Maḥmūd Lāshīn, Committee Member Jeanne Garane, Committee Member Alexander Beecroft, Committee Member Lacy Ford, Senior Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم وبه نستعين وصلى هللا وسلم وبارك على محمد النبي اﻷمي وعلى آله وصحبه وأحبابه أجمعين يارب ارض عنا آمين الحمد هلل في اﻷولى واﻵخرة وسﻻم على عباده الذين اصطفى هللا خير Abstract This research project studies different approaches to the question of meaning in literary texts in medieval Islamic critical traditions and modern Western literary criticism. Based on a comparative analysis, the dissertation attempts to explain each theory in its own terms, to find the commonalities and differences of the handling of such a question by literary theories, to establish a dialogue between the theories to understand them better and in wider terms. Thus, the dissertation also analyzes some texts by looking at them through the lenses of different theories. ii بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................ ii List of Figures ................................................................................................... iv Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Two Classical Arabic Theories of Textual Meaning........................................12 Chapter 2: Deconstruction: Meaning as différance ...........................................................61 Chapter 3: Formalist theories of Textual Meaning: Jakobson’s parallelism .....................95 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................130 Works Cited ....................................................................................................................132 iii بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم List of Figures Figure 1.1 Steps of al-Jurjānī's Theory .............................................................................18 Figure 1.2 Visualization of al-Qarṭājannī’s structural comparisons .................................41 Figure 1.3 Top 20 most frequent terms within 5 key-word-context of al-naẓm (arrangement) in Ḥāzim al-Qarṭājannī’s Minhāj................................................................43 Figure 1.4 Top 20 most frequent terms within 5 key-word-context of al-tanāsub (appropriateness) in Ḥāzim al-Qarṭājannī’s Minhāj ..........................................................47 Figure 1.5 Two thematic structures ...................................................................................55 Figure 3.1 Six factors and functions of verbal acts ...........................................................96 Figure 3.2 Top 25 most frequent terms within 10 key-word-context of “parallelism” in Jakobson’s Language in Literature .................................................................................104 Figure 3.3 Visualization of the song’s structure ..............................................................108 iv بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم وبه نستعين وصلى هللا وسلم وبارك على محمد النبي اﻷمي وعلى آله وصحبه وأحبابه أجمعين يارب ارض عنا آمين الحمد هلل في اﻷولى واﻵخرة وسﻻم على عباده الذين اصطفى هللا خير Introduction This dissertation takes up the notion of meaning as handled by literary theory. My point of departure is the assumption that each theory is a way of understanding texts. For example, structuralism is a way of understanding literary texts and it is different from the other ways of understanding texts such as deconstruction and formalism. While the differences between theories vary, for instance, the differences between structuralism and formalism are in many ways slighter than the differences between structuralism and deconstruction or Marxism, each theory has a distinctive way of understanding texts; and this is what makes it a theory or a school in the long list of literary theories and schools. This assumption is not applicable only to western literary theories. I claim that classical Arabic literary theories are also different ways of understanding literary texts. For instance, among the things that I would like to show in this dissertation is how ‘Abd al- Qāhir al-Jurjānī, a prominent medieval Arabic critic, attempted to redirect the critics’ focus al-naẓm, arrangement, which النظم to meanings as opposed to utterances via his theory of he presents as an approach to weigh and evaluate the eloquence of texts. I also would like to show how another medieval critic, i.e., Ḥāzim al-Qarṭājannī asserts the importance of the appropriate structuration and interrelatedness between the meanings of poetic texts in order to achieve eloquence and effectiveness. Thus, each critic attempts to develop his way of understanding, generally, the understanding of a text. Understanding a text is a process of knowing what a text means 1 because to understand something is to know what it means. For example, if I would like to understand the word “gravity,” I would google it to know what it means. No doubt, this general knowledge is still different from professional knowledge but both a physicist and I would share some understanding of “gravity.” However, in the context of textual analysis, ‘what it means’ is quite an ambiguous phrase, even though it is obvious that when we read something we attempt to understand ‘what it means.’ ‘What a text means’ includes what its vocabularies mean, what each sentence means, what each part in it means and even what it means in relation to other texts and contexts. The meaning of a text would then include different layers of understanding, i.e., understanding the meaning and the meaning of meaning, or what critics usually refer to as the significance or meaningfulness of a text, which is another level of meaning that is beyond the meanings of words and sentences (see for example, Benjamin; Iser; Hirsch). As if each literary text has two levels of meaning. One level is the meaning of words and sentences. The other level is the meaning that stems, for instance, from the relationship between different episodes in a text or the musicality of a text or the relationship between a text and another text or the indirect implications of the first level of meaning, etc. So, meaning now is not something someone checks in the dictionary or the simple understanding of sentences. A critical study of meaning thus studies the process of meaning-making, i.e., how authors make meanings in their texts and how readers make meanings from the texts. In this dissertation, I use the concept “meaning” in a manner that encompasses these different levels of meaning. When saying that each literary theory is a way of understanding texts, I mean a way of understanding the meaning-making of literary texts. That is what I 2 would like to look at through a comparative literary lens. How do medieval Arabic and modern Western literary theories approach the “meaning” of literary texts? To what extent are their approaches similar or different? The answers to these questions is what I would like to conclude this dissertation with. My comparison of different classical Arabic and modern Western theories is not aimed only at spotting the similarities and differences between them, nor is it aimed at manipulating them so that they appear to be harmonized with each other. Rather, I would like to analyze the different conditions of meaning and the interpretive operations each theory presents. I have chosen two representatives from each side of my comparison. On the Arabic side: ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī (d. 471 AH – 1078 AD) and Ḥāzim al-Qarṭājannī (d. 684 AH – 1285 AD), and on the Western side: Roman Jakobson (d. 1982) and Jacques Derrida (d. 2004). Both al-Jurjānī and al-Qarṭājannī are usually regarded in Arabic literary scholarship as the culmination of medieval Arabic rhetoric and literary criticism (Abū Mūsā, Madkhal; Ḥammūdah, al-Marāyah al-Muqa‘‘arah; ‘Aṣfūr).1 al-Jurjānī is most famous for his theory word and) اللفظ والمعنى al-naẓm, arrangement,